I find myself wanting o-blocks, so there's some of the ironic punishment in there. Did you mean to have the game end when you hold down side arrow? Moving to the side past the point where it hits the wall causes the blocks crash into each other, and I lose.The uncontrolled tumbling is in someways far crueler than the original premise.

Edit: The blocks piling up on the side is mistaken for blocks piling up after the screen is full. I guess there's not a good way to define defeat when the blocks can bounce.

Also you have to submit your score (or click "no thanks") and view the leaderboard every time, with that slow transition effect that ultimately makes you click the xkcd link multiple times thinking it's not responding, which opens several tabs, altogether making it very frustrating. Which I guess is appropriate. The game also just froze on me after laying a few blocks.

poxic wrote:You suck. And simultaneously rock. I think you've invented a new state of being.

In a weird way, I find it less cruel than regular Tetris. Getting massively screwed over by something that's supposed to be random and without malicious intent (like regular Tetris) gives that feeling that the universe is being mean to you, which is much worse than having a little computer program be mean to you because it's supposed to.

Bastet is like playing Tetris competitively. Hm, there's an idea... How about *actual* competitive Tetris? Where one person chooses the blocks and the other has to place them? With some limitations on what the chooser can choose, so it's not completely impossible... Maybe every fifth block could be a random one, or something...

Hm, what about a game with actual blocks? One person has the bag of blocks and hands them one at a time to the other person... Instead of disappearing rows, there'd be a grid that could hold all the blocks plus a certain number of empty squares; the person placing the blocks wins if they all fit on the grid.

videogamesizzle wrote:so, uh, seen any good arbitrary, high numbers lately?

The problem is, if this is a physics-version of Tetris where pieces being freshly placed succumb to local terrain and gravity, some of those pieces in that solution probably would not stay where placed. The left lower L for example has 50% of its weight over the edge of the bottom piece. If it can be assumed that pieces "cement" after landing, then it could be compressed up against the right L, but I don't think the left T would stay on top of it.

Although it should still be possible, without violating those physics, pointing the Ls inside and building slower. Unless pieces don't cement....

Did find a solution that is stable to a point you can reach the edges (verified IRL, the delay was in making these blocks out of wood for testing):

"Hell" solution...

helltris.gif (1.58 KiB) Viewed 7084 times

This assumes several things: That these are real world physics subjecting the pieces to gravity, that the bottom curvature has at least some friction (else the second piece would misalign the bottom one), that the pieces can rest against the sides, that the curve is a perfect half circle, etc.

Splarka wrote:This assumes several things: That these are real world physics subjecting the pieces to gravity, that the bottom curvature has at least some friction (else the second piece would misalign the bottom one), that the pieces can rest against the sides, that the curve is a perfect half circle, etc.

Physics? No. Normal Tetris rules. A tetromino stays where it lands.

Where a brick lands is defined as anywhere it makes contact with the ground in more than a single point, which explains why it keeps falling when the corner touches the curved floor, and stops once another corner touches. This also explains why a tetriomino is allowed to touch the corner of another tetronimo without connecting.

And and, HD Tetris/huge tetris was awful (I did spend about 40 minutes once and failed to make a line). Bastet was actually kind of fun (seconded on the "intentionally trying to screw you over" point). 99 blocks was a pain. Props to the guy who whipped up the sketched-looking version of the comic.

Not strictly true. If you have been hit once (and therefore have no armour), in certain spots you can get another suit of armour if you know what to do (usually jumping through a particular piece of air). You also get a new suit of armour at the end of each level.

'; DROP DATABASE;-- wrote:Bart Simpson's Escape From Camp Deadly was similar. I didn't play through it long enough to see if it got any better, but you started the game with two hit points. After death, you restarted with one.

Oh, you can pick up more fairly easily. I got to be quite proficient at that game as a lad; it's not half as awful as Bart vs the Space Mutants (though it's also not nearly as creative).

jeremyjw wrote:World of Warcraft where the endgame requires you to group with 24 over-caffeinated prepubescents with A.D.D. ...oh wait...

ANAL [Slam]ANAL [Mutilate]

More on topic to the comic- when I first saw it, my screen resolution cut off the bottom, so I just saw the title at the top and the top half of the comic. Then I scroll down and "...oh fraaaak." I didn't even laugh, I just felt the nightmare. Randall, you've done it again.

Zhatt wrote:Since we're all posting our Tetris clones, the comic reminds me of Triptych by Chonic Logic. The pieces are "squishy", so even on the level the comic has, you could squeeze the pieces together!

skeptical scientist wrote:Yeah, someone should make tetris with a physics engine just to fuck with people. Although to my mind, tetris hell is just like ordinary tetris, but the blocks alternate between s blocks and z blocks.

it wasn't hell but it was freaking entertaining to play... maybe i just like a challenge, even an impossible one, thanks kaolin fire XD ... and that first person tetris is epically entertaining also. thanks randall and XKCD comic forum, best one in a while for entertainment value XD

As far as I'm concerned even normal Tetris is Hell. It's a game you cannot win. You can just keep playing and experience it becoming harder and harder until it's eventually so fast that you'll fail no matter what.

I'm now working on two-column Tetris. I want to see if it's easier or harder. Surely points can be scored faster, but it's two points per row instead of ten, and it's easy to get empty spaces you can't remove.

Ool wrote:You can just keep playing and experience it becoming harder and harder until it's eventually so fast that you'll fail no matter what.

Spoiler:

how_it_happened.png (7.37 KiB) Viewed 6618 times

http://internetometer.com/give/4279No one can agree how to count how many types of people there are. You could ask two people and get 10 different answers.

TheChewanater wrote:I'm now working on two-column Tetris. I want to see if it's easier or harder. Surely points can be scored faster, but it's two points per row instead of ten, and it's easy to get empty spaces you can't remove.

That be really hard unless you can rotate 180o. Also, if you want to try playing with four columns it's an option on Lockjaw.

TheChewanater wrote:

Ool wrote:You can just keep playing and experience it becoming harder and harder until it's eventually so fast that you'll fail no matter what.

TheChewanater wrote:I'm now working on two-column Tetris. I want to see if it's easier or harder. Surely points can be scored faster, but it's two points per row instead of ten, and it's easy to get empty spaces you can't remove.

That be really hard unless you can rotate 180o. Also, if you want to try playing with four columns it's an option on Lockjaw.

I plan to have it let you vertically flip pieces by pressing up.

Also, playing normal Tetris seems too easy after playing all these messed up ones. I wonder if there's one that tries to let you win by giving you the ideal tetrominoes.

http://internetometer.com/give/4279No one can agree how to count how many types of people there are. You could ask two people and get 10 different answers.